Lumbopelvic-Targeted Multimodal Rehabilitation Versus Comparator Hamstring Rehabilitation in Professional Football Players with Acute Imaging-Negative Posterior-Thigh Symptoms: An Archived Participant-Level Reanalysis of a Reported Randomized Trial

Background: Acute imaging-negative posterior-thigh symptoms in professional football players may coexist with lumbopelvic and neurodynamic findings, but the diagnostic specificity and treatment implications of this presentation remain uncertain. This report presents an archived participant-level reanalysis of a reported exploratory randomized trial. Methods: Sixteen male Greek Super League players (21–32 years) with a first acute posterior-thigh episode were reported as randomized 1:1 by drawing lots. Available records documented negative structural imaging for a macroscopic hamstring lesion, a symptom-reproducing positive slump test, low pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs) at designated sites, and hamstring dysfunction, although important diagnostic, assessment, and treatment details were not retained. Comparator hamstring rehabilitation (CHR) comprised therapeutic ultrasound, hamstring massage, and progressive Nordic hamstring exercise; lumbopelvic-targeted multimodal rehabilitation (LMR) comprised instrument-assisted mechanical/manual treatment to the lumbar spine, sacroiliac region, and involved biceps femoris plus lumbar/core-stability exercise. A subsequent archive search recovered a de-identified participant-level workbook containing pre/post PPT, isometric hamstring strength, slump-test status, and one recorded return-day value for each participant. The workbook did not define the return event, recording procedure, decision-maker, or observation period; the recorded return interval was therefore treated as a descriptive archival variable only. Clinical pre/post values and individual change scores were recalculated from the recovered data; between-group change-score contrasts for the clinical measures were exploratory and unadjusted. Results: Recorded return interval was 14.63 ± 1.41 days in LMR and 25.38 ± 6.14 days in CHR; only group-level descriptive summaries are presented for this variable. Baseline hamstring strength was 14.41 ± 2.67 kg in LMR and 11.84 ± 1.38 kg in CHR; mean pre-to-post change was 9.81 ± 2.20 versus 5.80 ± 4.19 kg. Mean PPT changes were also numerically larger in LMR at the sacroiliac joint, L5, L4, and biceps femoris. All participants were slump-positive at baseline; at post-treatment assessment, 0/8 LMR and 4/8 CHR participants were positive. Conclusions: The recovered participant-level records improve numerical traceability but do not resolve the missing operational definition and ascertainment of the return interval or the incomplete intervention and assessment documentation. The observed clinical differences are descriptive and hypothesis-generating and do not establish accelerated recovery, causal efficacy of either package or any component, or safer or more durable return to sport.